Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14041 - 14060 of total 22787 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MH2

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 09:03pm PT

Put simply, once you hold said "thing" up to the light, who and "what, exactly," witnesses same?





JL,

If you are questioning who and what you are then science is not going to give you a complete answer. I've never seen anyone on this thread claim that it will.

However, if you are curious about how your mind works, science has a lot to tell you.

You say that experience is a process, not a thing.

Is a river a process or a thing? If you have a river with a small gradient and straight parallel banks, the water flows in straight lines with the fastest flow in the middle. If you take that river and gradually steepen the gradient, at some point the water starts swirling. Why does that happen?

Even simple nervous systems perceive and react to light. There are many things we don't understand about thinking but there is no reason to believe we won't eventually come to know a lot more. It will be the human nervous system that witnesses whatever understanding we develop.

Aren't things being held up to the light in this thread and witnessed? Is it so mysterious?

Couldn't neurons produce your experience in the same sense that water makes a river?
Lynne Leichtfuss

Sport climber
moving thru
Mar 30, 2013 - 09:06pm PT
Thanks for the very beautiful picture, Craig. That about sums up all I feel about god, religion and science. Love yo Dude. What beauty you propagate. Wish we were having a climbing get together this spring in JTree. Will miss seeing all you Stonemasters. Cheers, lynnie
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 30, 2013 - 09:23pm PT

Couldn't neurons produce your experience in the same sense that water makes a river?

Isnt the cause of a river the fact that two water cells can't occupy
the same space?

Or is it gravity?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 30, 2013 - 09:26pm PT
That seems to be obvious, there is no "information" exchange that couples the two trajectories together.


Okay, I'll put it as simply as I can, Ed. And for the last time, I DO NOT have a hang up on some flunky causal model with a domino like string of events. I'm prying at you not to try and get you to admit something your ae skilled at wiggling out of. So answer this.

You mentioned an Initial Condition, and Final Condition. We can safely say that the IC occurred in time BEFORE the FC. So in this sense we can say they occurred sequentially, IC, then FC. So far so good. Now, regardless of what happened in the time between IC and FC, above and beyond location and velocity, what is your belief about how FC is connected to IC, or put differently, forgetting about any causes, why does FC follow IC at all (again, FORGETTING about location and velocity for purpose of this question.

A physics friend would have me ask you this - and admitedly it is a set up, but I doubt that I can remember just how she phrased it. So I might bungle it here but who's keeping score anyhow? This is just a discussion.

Say we have the intitial condition and final condition of an experiment. And because it is a dynamic process, never static, we use the metaphor of a movie to describe the experiment. Granted we can only take "snap shots," as Ed described it, or freeze frames using the movie metaphor. So far so good.

Now let's say the experiment is the old Baking Soda & Vinegar Volcano, the classic science fair demonstration in which you simulate a volcanic eruption using kitchen chemicals: baking soda, vinegar, water, detergent, food coloring and either a bottle or else you can build a dough volcano.

Now say we execute the volcano experiment with fantastic precision, as they can do in world class labs, and say we conduct the VERY SAME EXPERIMENT 1,000 times and we take exactly the same time to do so, under the same conditions, every time, down to a nano second. And say between the initial or beginning of the movie and the final or end of the movie, we take exactly twenty stills (at the most "fundamental" moments) or freeze frame of what transpired during the super controlled volcano experiment.

Now given that the 1,000 volcano experiments are done the same, and the twenty shots of said experiments were also taken at exactly the same time and in exactly the same sequence as the experiment transpired, how closely do you think that each set of 20 photos (corresponding to 1,000 selfsame versions of the same volcano experiment) would match up with any other set of photos? Would the sequence of the photos be identifiably the same in each set, or in some cases might photo 7 in set 105, match photo 19 in set 567, and maybe photo 16 in set 821 would match photo 2 in set 290? In other words, would the sequence of shots show a certain order, or would they appear in a totally and unpredictable and random sequence, every time.

Again, do you believe there would be some uniformity to the sequence of the photos, set to set, and if so, why would photo 9, and the conditions thereof, consistently issue from photo 8, and in turn, lead to the condition in photo 10?

And remember, we're not asking for "causes," or WHY?

JL
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 30, 2013 - 09:54pm PT
If you are questioning who and what you are then science is not going to give you a complete answer. I've never seen anyone on this thread claim that it will.
--

Good God, that's just a horrifically misinformed quip on what I'm been saying all along. Since when have I expected science to experientially answer the koan, "Who am I?" This isn't some bullshit psychological question answered with a dash from your evaluating mind. That's CONTENT. I couldn't have made it clearer that the answer to the "Who am I" question can NEVER be addressed with content or mere data. And the very idea that a treatise on objective functioning is even talking about the same thing seems remarkable to me, coming from a doctor.

This really is the most obdurant crowd in terms of fusion to a perspective. It was the NLP people who said to never argue with people tranced by a perspective, but like the US invading Afsghanistan, I am guilty of not listening to expert opinions.

Experientially KNOWING who you are is a totally different animal than reckoning yourself via congnitive/conditioned evaluations, psycholocially, biologically, et al. The difference is known by all experienced climbers, who recognize one can "know" things about El Cap by way of Roper's old Green Guidebook, but go spend a month up there and the experience will tell you a totally different story.

JL
Captain...or Skully

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 09:58pm PT
Not yet.
Double talk, Largo. Otherwise known as baloney.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:01pm PT
Largo's exposure is illuminating also..

Must be that time of the year.

Thank You it's very prophetable
WBraun

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:03pm PT
With the 1,000 volcano experiments done the same, the results will be simultaneously the same and different.

That is classic "achintya-bheda-abheda tattva".

As I've always said this material world is a perfect, imperfect reflection, of the absolute reality.

One is temporary and one is eternal and still both are simultaneously real .....
WBraun

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:15pm PT
Base -- "We can control our minds fairly easily."

No you can't.

It's one of the hardest things to do I guarantee it ......
WBraun

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:35pm PT
y
you cannot set them up to be the same, so they are all different...

Yes ... but it's the same single experiment with different results .....
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:44pm PT
Ah-ha we have the original opponent WBraun. - 18 - 17 - 16

Nice volley. Your serve
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:51pm PT
What's more profitable in any experiment ?

What we are

What we think

What we feel

What's more real





I know, I know profitability

Jus Answer'in my own Quest'in
BB
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 31, 2013 - 01:06am PT
Thanks for the summary Ed. I was able to follow the reasoning quite well.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Mar 31, 2013 - 02:29am PT
Me too.

I still say you have a retirement career popularizing science.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Mar 31, 2013 - 07:02am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#296472

Psalm 32, Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit.
When I kept silent, my bones grew old
Through my groaning all the day long.
For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me;
My vitality was turned into the drought of summer. Selah
I acknowledged my sin to You,
And my iniquity I have not hidden.
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,”
And You forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah

For this cause everyone who is godly shall pray to You
In a time when You may be found;
Surely in a flood of great waters
They shall not come near him.
You are my hiding place;
You shall preserve me from trouble;
You shall surround me with songs of deliverance. Selah

I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go;
I will guide you with My eye.
Do not be like the horse or like the mule,
Which have no understanding,
Which must be harnessed with bit and bridle,
Else they will not come near you.

Many sorrows shall be to the wicked;
But he who trusts in the Lord, mercy shall surround him.
Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, you righteous;
And shout for joy, all you upright in heart!

photo not found
Missing photo ID#296471

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

...CHEERS, Victory Won!!!




MH2

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 08:40am PT
Experientially KNOWING who you are is a totally different animal than reckoning yourself via congnitive/conditioned evaluations, psycholocially, biologically, et al.


Nope. These modes of knowing are written and read by your nervous system. Different, sure. A totally different animal? What does that mean?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 31, 2013 - 09:40am PT
Experientially KNOWING who you are is a totally different animal than reckoning yourself via congnitive/conditioned evaluations, psycholocially, biologically, et al.


Nope. These modes of knowing are written and read by your nervous system. Different, sure. A totally different animal? What does that mean?


First, Ed, you dodged the direct question yet again and tried to divert us to an occurance with variable conditions. One wonders why Ed does this as opposed to answering the question as stated. A random system yields random results. We all know that. Why dodge the question? It won't bite you, but you will have to concede a point my friend said you will never concede "because he's over 40," whatever that means. Fair enough. I'm over 40, by a lot.

Now as to the above, I've answered that question 1,000 times, but you're stuck with a machine metaphor of mind, that's your model, and you're sticking to it. Fine by me. The machine metaphor (cells "talking" to each other) goes far in describing objective functioning, how information is stored et al. But you're still thinking that in the exact way, the agency of witnessing is "produced" as atomic or bio blowback from these same cells. Why wouldn't they, right? But as mentioned, there is a 1,000,000 prize if you can prove as much in a peer reviewed publication. Your "Nope" implies an answer that you "know" per the nervous system "brodcasting" self-consciousness. What is that answer?

Of course you have none, and you won't as even more data streams in because the data concerns objective functioning. That's what gets glossed over here for oddball reasons, or just fear or plain stubborness to address the stuff head on and to keep redefining the questions, like Ed does, dragging stuff back onto familiar turf.

But to answer the question: A totally different animal? What does that mean?

It means that you are still looking for you identity as either as a function, or something that has "content" identifable to your nervous system, some stuff that you can see and evaluate and know. The notion of no-thing remains totally lost on you lest you'd ask another question. But you didn't really ask a question did you? You offered a challenge - one for me to answer according to your criteria with more - content.

Arrrrrrrrrrg. This is a little like watching someone try and lyback an offwidth crack.

Oh, and one last question per the big bang, asked ages ago by a physicist. WHAT went bang (of course there was no actual explosion, but yu get the picture).

JL
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Mar 31, 2013 - 10:05am PT


"Though the term may sound like the universe began with a giant explosion, many scientists say that's not part of the theory. An explosion implies that something exploded, or expanded, from one center point outward into space. In fact, the Big Bang theory suggests that space itself expanded.

"If it were an explosion it would have a center," said physicist Paul Steinhardt, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. "We actually observe that everything is moving away from everything else. It's really about an expansion of the universe ."

Instead of a center from which everything expanded, scientists think space is expanding everywhere, in all directions, equally."
...

cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 31, 2013 - 10:12am PT
The notion of no-thing remains totally lost on you...

Caution, Largo at work :-)

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Mar 31, 2013 - 10:25am PT

"Well, that may work in theory, but will it work in the real world?"

"Well that might work in the real world, but will it work in theory?"

"Well it works, is predicted by theory . . . so it's provisionally true."

"Well, we can't explain or say what it is, so it isn't worth talking about or it doesn't exist."

"Here's another take on it, and it's better than the other viewpoint."

"This viewpoint explains more of the variance / data than the other viewpoint--so it's better."
Messages 14041 - 14060 of total 22787 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews